Metaphysics

     Metaphysics deals with ultimate reality. Metaphysics has a direct effect on ethics, as what exists influences what is done. The concise concept of metaphysics (if such a thing is possible) is that it is concerned with what exists, what does not exist, what can exist, what cannot exist, and what it means to exist or not to exist.
     In a deeper vein, metaphysics looks to answer the question of God's existence, the existence of the self, the existence of the mind, the existence of the soul, and other items. A distinction can be made between concrete (the computer I am using to type this post) and abstract objects (the color blue, the number π, the square root of three). Once this distinction is made, some immediately ask if abstract objects actually exist (Plato thought they did).
     A person must have a grasp on comprises reality in order to navigate reality. False beliefs can have disastrous consequences. For example, if I see a bus travelling down the street and I falsely believe that bus to be a mirage, then I will be considerably shorter than my current height.
     So, on to the big question: what makes up reality? Is it one type of stuff (monism)? Two types of stuff (dualism)? or something else? Some people today hold that only one type of stuff exists, namely that which is physical. This would affect how one understands the mind. Either one does not have a mind or the mind is merely a physical composition. Moreover, God, if he exists, would be a physical composition. Other people hold the position that two types of stuff exists, the material and the immaterial. Thus, minds, souls, and God would be considered immaterial while my body, my computer table, and my glass of sweet tea would be material. Traditional Christian understanding holds dualism (as defined here) to be true.

What you believe exists (while not affecting what actually exists) will affect how you value things. If material items are all that exist, then you may not place very much value in a religion that proports to worship and serve an immaterial deity. If you  do believe in the immaterial, you might place much value in God or souls.

All of the big questions in life are important, and one should take time to consciously reflect on how to answer them if for no other reason than to see how you are already living your answer. Until next time. 

Worldview: What is it and why does it matter?

     This is the first post of several in this series. I want to take some time to define what is a worldview and why worldviews matter.
     James Sire defines a worldview in his book, The Universe Next Door. Essentially, he states that a worldview is a fundamental commitment to the way things are and that a person may hold this commitment consciously or unconsciously. Furthermore, this commitment may be expressed by statements or stories, the content of which may be true, partially true, or entirely false. This commitment forms the basis from which one lives.
     Everyone has a worldview. Moreover, worldviews touch five major areas: what is real (metaphysics), what is a human being (anthropology), what is God (theology), how should one live (ethics), and how does one know anything (epistemology). This series will examine each category in a deeper fashion with additional posts.
     Worldviews form the framework, or lens, through which one understands the world, or what exists. The categories composing a worldview overlap each other, influencing and being influenced by the other areas.
     A few points regarding my working assumptions: the basic laws of logic are true; truth is what corresponds to reality; people are situated within a particular perspective; at least one thing must be absolute. I will be more than happy to try to address any concerns to these assumptions. Moreover, I will try to provide reasons that these assumptions are more likely than not.
     Many writers more articulate than I have written on these topics. Nonetheless, these are issues that every must confront in order to live. My hope is that I may cause someone to evaluate his or her worldview honestly. Please stay tuned.

Upcoming Posts

With summer upon us, I have a little more free time to read and write more than just required papers for class. Over the next several posts, I will be writing on worldviews, starting with the basic areas that comprise a worldview, as well as questions to ask within those areas. These posts will address metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, anthropology, and theology. I hope that you find the posts helpful in clarifying your own positions.

Homesick

My wife and I lived in a tiny town, named Graceville, situated in the panhandle of Florida. We resided there for two years, and when we think of home, we think of this town. I finished my undergraduate degree at the local college of this town, the Baptist College of Florida. We left Graceville when I finished my degree so that I might pursue my Master's Degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, but we left reluctantly.
We are desperately homesick for Graceville. We would move back at the drop of a hat should the will of God permit and the opportunity arise.
In the same manner, the Christian should be homesick for the return of Jesus. In many ways, this world is not fair. With the Day of Judgment, all of the unfairness and evil will be done away, and justice will be reestablished.
Christians are reminded every day that Jesus has not yet returned, for evil still persists. Our hearts long for peace to prevail, desiring to see wrongs righted and goodness reigning. This desire can and should be deeply felt at times, pressing Christians to live rightly. This right living includes telling others of what is to come.
An area of interest of mine is the Day of Judgment. This day is like the wedding day for the believer, for the Christian will no longer be the bride of Christ but the wife. At this time, the relationship between God and the believer will be consummated. Until this day, the Christian should live now in the same manner that he or she will live in after the Day of Judgment, as this is the way humans are intended to live.
Lastly, this desire (for peace, goodness, and justice to prevail) seems to point to that which can satisfy that desire. This desire is normal for all people, but the Christian should recognize that satisfaction of this desire comes from Jesus alone. Moreover, the Christian should be ready to tell this good news to everyone, knowing that everyone will stand before Jesus in the Day of Judgment and knowing that all Christians will be accountable for who they did and did not tell. May we let the world know of the Prince of Peace and the God of Justice that will consummate his delivery of this sin-stricken world.

To be or not to be [Nietzsche]?

While I might have dropped off the face of the earth, such a trip was only temporary. This post consists of a paper that I presented to the ethics course I attended this semester. I appreciate Nietzsche's work, and, to be honest, if I rejected theism, I would follow Nietzsche's thoughts. For myself, I see the choices for religious beliefs consisting of embracing either theism or Nietzsche's philosophy. I hope that the work is helpful, and, as always, I would appreciate any feedback.

Believe This or I Will Beat You Up: Nietzschean Conflict Resolution

Introduction

 “What lustrums, what sacred games show we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it?”[1] Here, one begins to see the logical conclusions flowing from the Madman’s thoughts. In Nietzsche’s parable of the Madman, Nietzsche accepts the premise of atheism as being true. From this, Nietzsche shows that one must wipe away everything dependent upon Christianity, including morality.

Following Christian morality results in the safety and security of individuals as a secondary benefit of restraining people’s appetites. Since Nietzsche deems Christianity and its moral system to be false, he must find some other guided rule whereby to live. Nietzsche finds the will to act as the guiding ethical principle for his system. Essentially, one wills to do what one desires, thereby establishing what is good and evil by utilizing the self as the appraiser of values. How can Nietzsche’s ethical system adjudicate between two willful individuals whose actions are antithetical to each other? Ultimately, one should reject Nietzsche’s morality due to its axiological failure to provide adequate adjudication between two conflicting, mutually exclusive actions.

Argument

Nietzsche conceives that Christianity committed the most heinous crime against humanity by propagating the lie that all men are created equal. This lie serves no other end than to elevate the weak and handicap the strong. “The truth is that there is no other alternative for gods: either they are will to power – in which case they are national gods – or incapacity for power – in which case they have to be good....”[2] Nietzsche here affirms that people project their values upon the conception of God and that only two genuine possibilities for this conception of God exist. Apart from God, “it is mere individual desire. That is thought to serve as a basis for action.”[3]

Nietzsche sees humanity as broken into the categories of slave and master. Equality only exists within the categories, but never between the categories, as

the ability and obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude and prolonged revenge – both only within the circles of equals, – artfulness in retaliation, refinement of the idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies (as outlets for the emotions of envy, quarrelsome, arrogance – in fact, in order to be a good friend): all these are typical characteristics of the noble morality....[4]

 Perhaps one is reminded of Japan during the peak of the samurai. During that time, Japanese customs stratified the society, with samurai falling into the upper category. Protocol dictated how one should interact between classes. Therefore, samurais treated each other as equals, but a samurai offended by a commoner could take the head of the offender. Alternatively, one may think of the relationship between Batman and Joker, hero and nemesis. Under Nietzsche’s understanding, as power holds value, the quality directly corresponds to the relationship between the powers of the individual. The greater the disparity between the power of the wills, the greater the inequality between the individuals. Thus, one may still deem people at cross-purposes as equals within a Nietzschean system.

An unsatisfactory position arises by admitting that the Nietzschean system deems two people who are equally willful in antithetical purposes as both be right. This affirmation leads to a contradiction of how one should act. Therefore, either the world is logically inconsistent or the Nietzschean system fails to correspond to reality.

Objections

One possible objection to the thesis of this examination may state that Nietzsche does give the means of adjudication, namely, he that prevails is right. Should an apparent stalemate arise, the individuals should continue to will.[5] To ask more than this simply seeks what does not exist. Moreover, Nietzsche simply gives motivation to the will by formulating his doctrine of eternal recurrence, which states that everything happening now has already happened, and will continue to happen, an infinite number of times.[6]

One may object in a second fashion, stating that if neither prevails, then both should assure mutual destruction. Essentially, both parties should will until neither party is left. Furthermore, one may claim that this situation does not fall subject to valuations of rightness and wrongness as far as individuals are concerned, only that one should act with disregard to the consequences.

Responses to Objections

First, one may respond to the objection claiming that potency determines morality by stating that potency stands counterintuitive as a means of determining who and what is right. Intuitively, potency bears less upon the morality of an act than Nietzsche emphasizes. The matter of potency remains a question better answered within the realm of ability rather than morality. Scripture many times addresses the willfulness of individuals by deeming such actions sinful. One specific example consists of Uzzah willfully putting forth his hand to catch the Ark of the Covenant and keep it from falling off the oxen cart.[7] God struck Uzzah dead for his violation of the law. Second, David willfully took Bathsheba in an adulterous affair. God declared David guilty of willful disobedience to God’s law.[8] The third and final example demonstrates that some willfulness falls within the will of God. This third example consists of Jesus crucified. He submitted to this crucifixion willfully, and one seems hard-pressed to make the case that a coward or sissy undertook such action.

The second objection does not address that Nietzsche fails to provide why someone ought to will in such a way: if God is dead, then all is permissible; therefore, what constrains one to conform to any moral system? Judgment on matters becomes mere opinion that binds nothing. If one wills one way, a second wills another way, and a third wills to will nothing, then these contradictions find no resolution within Nietzsche’s system. Lastly, Nietzsche gives no account of those actions deemed good when done contrary to a person’s will, such as saving the life of someone attempting suicide.[9] Thus, while the will plays a significant aspect in a person’s life, Nietzsche’s emphasis upon the will still leads him unguided and deficient.

Conclusion

Nietzsche’s system remains impotent to affirm what is right or wrong, which would thereby adjudicate between two conflicting parties. Even such acts as rape and torture seem to find no denunciation. While Nietzsche speaks of a higher morality whereby he passes judgment upon established morality, Nietzsche struggles to find grounds for why one ought to follow this morality, providing only an appeal to desires as the key motivator.

Second, while one may cling ostensibly to the hardened holdout that Nietzsche has carved into the world of morality, one may state that the case for overturning Nietzsche’s morality has not fully proven the deficiency of the system, only that other systems exist that can describe the same actions. While some truth may persist in such a response, Nietzsche’s system directly rests upon the premise that God does not exist. With positive arguments for God’s existence (such as the ontological argument and the Kal­am cosmological argument), one can make a more extensive case for the rejection of Nietzsche’s system of morality. If Nietzsche is right, then God does not exist. God does exist. Therefore, Nietzsche is wrong. If Nietzsche is wrong, then his morality has no basis. If his morality has no basis, then no one ought to follow his morality. Thus, no one ought to follow Nietzsche’s system of morality.

Therefore, Nietzsche’s system should be abandoned. The system suffers from both internal and external flaws that leave it untenable, should God exist. Good reasons exist that God exists. With these arguments in hand, one must willfully make this abandonment of Nietzsche’s morality due to its axiological failure to proffer forth some means of resolution for the equipollence between contrary and competing actions.

Bibliography

Banner, Michael. Christian Ethics: A Brief History. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Cavalier, Robert J., James Gouinlock, and James P. Sterba, eds. Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.

Ferry, Luc. A Brief History of Thought: A Philosophical Guide to Living. Translated by Theo Cuffe. New York: Harper Perennial, 2011.

Froese, Katrin. Rousseau and Nietzsche: Toward and Aesthetic Morality. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001.

Heidegger, Martin. Nietzsche. Translated by David Farrell Krell, 4 vols. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1979.

Irwin, William, Mark T. Conard, and Aeon J. Skoble, eds. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! Of Homer. Chicago: Open Court, 2001.

Leiter, Brian and Neil Sinhababu, eds. Nietzsche and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Leiter, Brian. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Nietzsche on Morality. London: Routledge, 2002.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Antichrist. Translated by H. L. Mencken. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1918. Kindle.

———. Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Helen Zimmern. The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Kindle.

———. The Dawn of Day. Translated by John McFarland Kennedy. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1911. Kindle.

———. The Joyful Wisdom. Translated by Thomas Common, Paul V. Cohn, and Maude D. Petre. The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, edited by Oscar Levy, vol. 10. Edinburgh: The Darien Press, 1910.

———. Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. Translated by Thomas Common. Kindle.

Wilcox, John T. Truth and Value in Nietzsche: A Study of His Metaethics and Epistemology. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1974.

Willard, Dallas, ed. A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life’s Hardest Questions. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2010.

---

[1]. Frederick Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom, trans. by Thomas Common, Paul V. Cohn , and Maude D. Petre, The Complete Works of Frederick Nietzsche, ed. by Oscar Levy (Edinburgh: The Darien Press, 1910), 168.

[2]. Friedrich Nietzsche, Antichrist, trans. by H. L. Mencken (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1918), 9. Kindle.

[3]. Dallas Willard, ed., A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2010), 161.

[4]. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. by Helen Zimmern, The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, 123. Kindle.

[5]. In some sense, one may argue that the Nietzschean system falls under deontology rather than consequentialism.

[6]. Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought: a Philosophical Guide to Living, trans. by Theo Cuffe (New York: Harper Perennial, 2011), 187.

[7]. 1 Samuel 8:6-8

[8]. 1 Samuel 11:2-5

[9]. Granted, one may respond that the person attempting to commit suicide would be acting favorable to the rest of the world by removing himself or herself from it so that others might flourish. Such an apathetic response runs contrary to natural inclinations.

Nature vs. Nurture

While my wife and I were visiting our family in central Florida, we went to Sonny's for one of our lunches in order to satisfy our barbecue hunger. When we went inside, I held the door for my wife and my mother-in-law. As another family came behind us, I remained at the door, holding it open for this other family. I had never met them before. Then, something unexpected happened. A young man of the family, who was perhaps 16 or 17 years old, offered to hold the door for me and let me go ahead of him. At this, my stubbornness surfaced, and I stayed my post, insisting that he go ahead as I was already here. He responded that he would be more than happy to take my place. After a short friendly exchange, he entered while I followed behind. My family sat down, not really sure of what was said between the young man and I. They did not know at first that we were conversing about who should be holding the door for whom. As we finished our meal and made our way to the front so that we might pay for our meal and leave, the young man excused himself from his own meal, slipped in front of us, and remained at the door, holding it until we all had passed through it. Then, he returned to finish the rest of his lunch. Such an encounter makes me smile as it gives me hope that virtue is not dead.
I give the previous story so that I might ask the question, what motivated this young man to battle with me over courtesy? Was it how he was raised (nurture)? or was it based upon his genetic makeup (nature)? I remember being intrigued by this oft-debated topic when I was enrolled in Introduction to Psychology. This question is presented, yet no satisfying answer seems prevalent, at least no answer that I find satisfying. Something seems to be lacking, namely freedom.
When one asks the question of nature versus nurture, the discussion is already set. Namely, the question assumes determinism with the goal of finding what is the particular determinant.
The primary means of asserting accountability for one's actions (which Christianity certainly does by claiming that God is judge and will reckon to all what he or she is due) seems to be the positing of libertarian free will. This notion of free will holds that nothing outside of an individual determines what actions that he or she will take. While some finer points can be made (such as some decision do determine what is possible thereafter), at least one decision in life will be freely made (at this point, I would recommend Ken Keathley's Salvation and Sovereignty).
One way to substantiate this claim is to reflect upon the fact that I have desires, Yet, just because I desire to do something does not mean that I will do something. Furthermore, just because I know something does not necessitate that I will act on that knowledge (such would be the case of a heart doctor that will not pass by fried chicken and mashed potatoes with gravy). The way the world is remains distinct from the way the world ought to be.
Perhaps the world would be a much different place should people consider themselves responsible for the situations they find themselves in and for their reactions to those situations. rather than seeking someone or something else to bear the blame.